Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

In Japanese, the term "aikido" can be used more loosely and descriptively based on context but in English we tend to think of words like aikido, kendo, judo, etc to be definitive terms that relate to a particular martial art.

I try to stay away from discussions over semantics, but I have to point out that the word aikido has exactly the same connotations in Japanese as in English, loosely "that martial art without competition that uses a lot of wrist locks". Although the Japanese write words with kanji, and kanji have their intrinsict meaning, ordinary japanese don't analyze the semantics of a word by breaking it up into its kanji components - that is an exercise mostly limited to linguists and foreigners.

It's a semantic error according any definition that allows the word aikido to serve as the name for a particular martial art.

Quote:

According to other's definitions that may not be the case - in fact, according to other definitions calling what you do in the dojo with the funny clothes on may well be a semantic error

Then their definitions are wrong. Morihei Ueshiba created a martial art whose technical basis was Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu and called it aikido. One might argue that what I'm doing is not true to the founder's vision of aikido, or that it does not properly express aiki, and therefore does not qualify as true aikido, and I could not disprove that. But that doesn't make me calling my martial art aikido a semantic error. It's only a semantic error if aikido is not the name of a particular martial art.

Quote:

And no, linguistically a word doesn't have to be that tightly defined to have meaning or to be usable (take "love" for example, which is enourmously vague and variable) - it just means that further qualifiers would be necessary to clarify what you're talking about.

A word that functions as the name for a particular martial art must be that tightly defined, yes.

Definition of Aikido. Mmmmm. Which one. I wonder if anyone could answer the following:

1) Descriptive definition.

2) Literal Definition.

3) Technical Definition.

4) Mental Definition.

5) Spiritual Definition.

6) Founder's Definition(s)

7) Hombu's Definition.

8) IP folks Definition.

9) Each past Shihan's Definition.

10) Kotodama Definition.

++++++++

Mmmmm. Have fun.

Peace.G.

Nice post Graham. It really emphasizes how limiting definitions are by their nature. An Aikido defined by its techniques flies in the face of O Sensei's words regarding the nature of technique: "The techniques of the Way of Peace change constantly..." and "Today's techniques will be different tomorrow."

Pure Aikido has no form and therefore cannot be defined using any particular form as the basis for a definition.

I have supplied in this thread already what I consider to be a working definition of the word aikido. And I defined working as (a) meaning something in conversation, (b) functioning as the name for a particular martial art, (c) acknowledging a basis on principles broader than martial art, and (d) making no judgments about the validity of a particular style.

Clearly, you are dissatisfied with my definition. So what would be a better one?

I have supplied in this thread already what I consider to be a working definition of the word aikido. And I defined working as (a) meaning something in conversation, (b) functioning as the name for a particular martial art, (c) acknowledging a basis on principles broader than martial art, and (d) making no judgments about the validity of a particular style.

Clearly, you are dissatisfied with my definition. So what would be a better one?

"The Art of Peace has no form - it is the study of the spirit." - Morihei Ueshiba

Ron

合気道は形はない。形はなく、すべて魂の学びである。

Just a couple of thought, he didn't really say "Art of Peace", he said "Aikido", John was being a littlle poetic here. Also, the word "spirit" here isn't that simple, it gets into some deep areas that don't make sense unless they are in context with a number of other things he talked about, and might not be quite what most people would expect on a simple reading. I'll get into that at some point.

Just a couple of thought, he didn't really say "Art of Peace", he said "Aikido", John was being a littlle poetic here.

No problem with substituting Aikido for Art of Peace.

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote:

Also, the word "spirit" here isn't that simple, it gets into some deep areas that don't make sense unless they are in context with a number of other things he talked about, and might not be quite what most people would expect on a simple reading.

I understand Chris. When I refer to spirit in relation to Aikido it's within a very personal and specific context that dovetails nicely with my idea that Aikido is, at its core, an art that contains no inherent forms. The forms I practice on the mat, when performed in accordance with the principles I was taught, are doorways or windows that enable me to experience Aikido in the realm of a martial art. But hey, that's me. I'm sure Aikido works its way on others differently, in harmony with their own needs.

It depends - it's not exactly wrong, but you get a lot of people who don't know any better taking literal meaning out of a metaphorical (poetic) translation. Also, there's the issue of why a translation would add a metaphorical layer there that didn't exist in the original in the first place. There are times when Ueshiba said "the art of peace", or something similar - this isn't one of them.

It just makes it harder to get back to the original, IMO. I'd have no complaint if there were other translations for folks to compare it to, and everybody was aware that it is a poetic, interpretive, translation, but that's usually not the case.

From your referenced article: "The character 合 is a cover fitting over a hole or an opening and actually means "combine", "match" or "fit together" (as in a lid fitting on a container)."

When I began training, Aikido was translated as the "Way to union with Ki."

What caught my eye was this quote:

"Morihiro Saito:

In Iwama, O-Sensei explored Aikido by worshipping the Budo Guardian Spirits and praying every morning and evening. And so Takemusu Aikido was created. He said the former aikido was not the "true" aikido. It may not be incorrect aikido, but this is what O-Sensei said. In Takemusu Aikido, bit by bit, new techniques appear spontaneously. This never stops, it is infinite like a spring. This is Takemusu." (italics added).

To me this means that Aikido is a process that ultimately works its way outward. I spend time internalizing the teachings, practicing the forms, the Ki exercises and such. At some point however, the process gets reversed and I begin to create Aikido instead of absorb and regurgitate it. And once I can create Aikido I can create it anywhere regardless of the nature of the activity.

From your referenced article: "The character 合 is a cover fitting over a hole or an opening and actually means "combine", "match" or "fit together" (as in a lid fitting on a container)."

When I began training, Aikido was translated as the "Way to union with Ki."

That's true, but it can be difficult to accurately translate a compound word through breaking down its component parts. "Martial arts", for example, has only a slight relation to Roman dieties.

Quote:

Ron Ragusa wrote:

What caught my eye was this quote:

"Morihiro Saito:

In Iwama, O-Sensei explored Aikido by worshipping the Budo Guardian Spirits and praying every morning and evening. And so Takemusu Aikido was created. He said the former aikido was not the "true" aikido. It may not be incorrect aikido, but this is what O-Sensei said. In Takemusu Aikido, bit by bit, new techniques appear spontaneously. This never stops, it is infinite like a spring. This is Takemusu." (italics added).

To me this means that Aikido is a process that ultimately works its way outward. I spend time internalizing the teachings, practicing the forms, the Ki exercises and such. At some point however, the process gets reversed and I begin to create Aikido instead of absorb and regurgitate it. And once I can create Aikido I can create it anywhere regardless of the nature of the activity.

Ron

I would say that the creative effect is the result, or effect, of Takemusu rather than Takemusu itself, which is an important distinction.

What is "pure" aikido? Clearly it is not what we do in the dojo, because what we do in the dojo obviously has form. And if what we do in the dojo isn't really aikido, then what should we call it?

I'll let O Sensei address that in this quote, from page 36 of John Stevens' expanded edition of the Art of Peace:

"Regarding technique Morihei made this telling remark: In reality, Aikido has no forms, no set patterns. It is like an invisible wave of energy. However, such a phenomenon is too difficult for human beings to grasp, so we use provisional forms to explain it and put it into practice. Any movement, in fact can become Aikido technique [emphasis added], so in ultimate terms, there are no mistakes. My advice to you: Learn and forget! Learn and forget! Make the techniques part of your being.

He [Morihei] further stated: You cannot imitate what I do. Each technique is a once-and-for-all experience. My techniques emerge freely, spewing forth like a fountain. Rather than try to copy what I do listen to what I say. That is where the essence of techniques lies. Someday you will understand."

That doesn't answer my question. You have stated that "true aikido has no form". But the martial art we train in the dojo clearly has form: it has techniques, it has stances, it has traditions, etc. Therefore, according to your words, the martial art we train in the dojo is not true aikido. So what shall we call it?

That doesn't answer my question. You have stated that "true aikido has no form". But the martial art we train in the dojo clearly has form: it has techniques, it has stances, it has traditions, etc. Therefore, according to your words, the martial art we train in the dojo is not true aikido. So what shall we call it?

Quote me correctly, I stated "pure Aikido has no form.", not true Aikido.

I'll give this one more shot.

"In reality, Aikido has no forms, no set patterns. It is like an invisible wave of energy." - M.Ueshiba

That's pure Aikido. If that answer doesn't satisfy you then call it whatever you like Matt.

That doesn't answer my question. You have stated that "true aikido has no form". But the martial art we train in the dojo clearly has form: it has techniques, it has stances, it has traditions, etc. Therefore, according to your words, the martial art we train in the dojo is not true aikido. So what shall we call it?

My previous post will be my last on the subject. I'd like to apologize to everyone for dragging this thread so far off track.

I think the point I'm trying to make is a valid one, but in trying to make it I've completely hijacked the thread, and we haven't addressed OP's real point in a week now.

I'm going to bring the question of how we use the word aikido in my blog, which means there will be a thread on the External Blog Posts board. Anyone who wants to can continue the discussion there when it goes up.

It's a semantic error only according to your definition. According to other's definitions that may not be the case - in fact, according to other definitions calling what you do in the dojo with the funny clothes on may well be a semantic error.

And no, linguistically a word doesn't have to be that tightly defined to have meaning or to be usable (take "love" for example, which is enourmously vague and variable) - it just means that further qualifiers would be necessary to clarify what you're talking about. Thus, for example, Stan Pranin talks about "modern" Aikido.

Best,

Chris

Huh. Chris, I would like to buy you a beer, assuming that you enjoy beer, at my friend Byron's place, the Honolulu Tavern. I think that was very well put.

I have a question. Why is it that people take the words themselves so seriously, yet miss the meaning and/or thoughts/concepts which the words are meant to convey so lightly?

Illustration: "I swing and try to punch Chris in the face" (I would not, not a good business decision, I don't think).

OR ...

"I, using my advanced sense of maai and feeling the cosmic shift of psychological pressures conjoining into the precise adjunction of physical prescence and mental intent, do ask my sympathetic nervous system to cause a negative impulse to be fired down the spinal column, enervating the additive musculature of my starboard side non-gravity defying appendage to fling itself - while clenching itself into self-defensive and composed statis - into the space occupied by the maxillofacial arch of Chris' body structure in a feeble attempt to render his consciousness insensate.

Please pardon my straight speech, but life is too short. I get the feeling that many folks enjoy the masturbatory sensation of using multisyllabic phraseology in an attempt to stroke their own egos on here, yet if on the mat, they may have a problem placing one foot in front of the other.

The above is a very gross generalization, but I think it apt. I apologize in advance, Jun.

I find it interesting that the kanji character for kuzushi illustrates a mountain falling on a house.